[Noisebridge-discuss] Banning Patrick from Noisebridge

[Jason Dusek]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:45, Adrian Bankhead
<invisibleman_24 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In addition to the fact a definitive action was taken before
> people had time to consense, the thing that I'm most disturbed
> about is that Patrick was never given the opportunity to speak
> in his own defense to the group, or to reply formally to
> accusations ("evidence"). Even if he is a total scumbag, he
> still deserves the opportunity to defend himself prior to
> banning. And Noisebridge guard jealously its collective
> autonomy, which is strengthened when it protects the rights of
> the accused and insists on hearing arguments from all sides
> before making decisions.

  I agree with you about all this. I think, had this not been a
  case of sexual harassment, many of us would have stood firm in
  our demands for a just procedure. My own role in this may
  haunt me yet.

> Perhaps there ought to be a formal mechanism to suspend people
> under emergency circumstances (a certain number
> of members have to sign a petition)? A suspension would kick
> off an eviction process that would give a suspended person the
> opportunity to defend him or herself, and would build-in
> time (at least as many meetings as it takes to become a member
> of Noisebridge) to allow the group to make a cool and
> considered decision.

  This is too specific as regards timing, number of meetings, all
  that stuff. Suspensions are special cases; I don't know that we
  can have a procedure that provides for a general way to handle
  what we want in each case.

  The notion that the accused must have a hearing, that the
  defendant may offer a defense, is sound and really should be
  held to whenever possible, not just in suspensions. I fully
  support that.

--
Jason Dusek
Linux User #510144 | http://counter.li.org/